The commentary associated with Canon 2C cites for guidance by analogy several Supreme Court cases in which organizations had been found discriminatory and therefore subject to adverse action under State statutes. One case involved a popular eating establishment open only to men. Another involved Rotary Clubs International, with "19,788 Rotary Clubs in 157 countries, with a total membership of about 907,750." Membership was limited to men. Another involved the United States Jaycees, with "295,000 members in 7,400 local chapters affiliated with 51 state organizations." Full membership was restricted to young men. In each case, no Constitutional right of association was found to be sufficiently infringed to outweigh State interests in eliminating discrimination on the basis of sex. A key factor in each case was that the group involved was so large as to vitiate any suggestion that "it is in fact and effect an intimate, purely private organization . . . ."
Hence, it is apparently not in contravention of Canon 2C for a judge to belong to a very small, private and selective organization, membership in which is limited to women and which is dedicated to the preservation of "religious, ethnic or cultural values of legitimate common interest to its members." Belizean Grove is very small, and it apparently invites for membership only a few women with "particular cultural values," which they presumably share. It does not appear to matter whether those values are unique to women.
There has been some discussion of the meaning of Canon 2C, as to which there is probably legitimate disagreement. For example, this writer for the National Review seems to come to a different conclusion, and this writer for Power Line agrees with him. Legal issues frequently produce divergent views, and that's probably a good thing; otherwise, what would lawyers do?
There are those who claim that membership in such an organization is bad, since it discriminates on the basis of sex, and that Judge Sotomayor's membership must somehow be explained away during her confirmation hearings. Based on my reading of opinions in which she joined as a judge on the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, there appears to be little in them, or in other matters, to bring her qualifications seriously into question. I hope that my fellow "conservatives" don't engage in silliness by elevating Judge Sotomayor's Belizean Grove membership to an obstacle of greater importance than, in my opinion, it warrants. It would, I think, be a bad thing were "conservative" Republicans to attack Judge Sotomayor as "liberal" Democrats attacked Judge D. Brooks Smith when he was nominated to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals in 2002, based on his then former membership in the Spruce Creek Rod and Gun Club, a men's fishing club. One basis for opposition was that the fishing club provided
important business and professional contacts . . . where business and professional men interact and bond with each other and with important political figures and judges.The same is clearly true of Belizean Grove, the web site of which states that it is dedicated to "influential women who are key decision makers in the profit, non-profit and social sectors; who build long term mutually beneficial relationships." Judge Smith was eventually confirmed by the Senate, sixty four to thirty five.
The attack was beaten back to considerable degree because of an interesting fact neither Leahy nor Schumer knew. On the wall of the club was a photograph of Marine One landing at Spruce Creek. . . . The president in question was a Spruce Creek devotee — Jimmy Carter. . . . a frequent visitor to what Leahy and Schumer were painting as a sewer of gender discrimination, he was still coming there long after his White House days were over.That Democrats sometimes do silly things should not be an excuse for Republicans to do those same silly things; silliness begets silliness, and the selection of a Supreme Court justice is too important for that sort of nonsense. And, of course, by not acting silly, the Republicans can help the Democrats look silly by comparison.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - irene wagner
It's hard to argue against this. If there's a club where the real influential "yeasty" discussions are taking place among people of influence, then it's absolutely WRONG to exclude on the basis of race or gender, be that gender male or female.
(I'm still holding to the idea of women-only gyms...just because. But I'm agin' men-only gyms because super athletic women would be barred from the place where the best equipment probably is.) PS: Your hanging Chad quip on other thread was funny.
2 - El Bicho
She's resigned from the club this evening, so problem solved
3 - Clavos
Sorry to hear that, she should have stood her ground.
4 - Dan(Miller)
El Bicho,
I didn't think there was a problem; to the extent that there was, her resignation shouldn't solve it.
According to anews account yesterday,
In a letter to Democratic Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont and Republican Sen. Jeff Sessions of Alabama, the federal appeals court judge said she is convinced that the club does not practice "invidious discrimination" and that her membership in it did not violate judicial ethics.
But she said she didn't want questions about it to "distract anyone from my qualifications and record."
I agree with the first part of her statement, but not with the second part: In view of her position that membership was not a bad thing, I think she should still be questioned during the confirmation hearing about her views on "reverse discrimination."
Dan(Miller)
5 - Jeannie Danna
Dan,
I agree with you that people should be able to form and participate in any club they choose as long as it does not cloud their judgment.
Judge Sonia Sotomayor would not discriminate against "all men" just because she belonged to a women's group. She should have remained a member!
My questions are about "The skull & Bones."
Are they all men? and How much power do they posses in American politics?
6 - Jeannie Danna
Federal judges are bound by a code that says they shouldn't join any organization that discriminates by race, sex, religion or nationality.Are there any Supreme Court Judges in the Skull & Bones?
7 - Jeannie Danna
Over the years, Bones has included presidents, cabinet officers, spies, Supreme Court justices, captains of industry, and often their sons and lately their daughters, a social and political network like no other.
So they now allow women. The question still remains. "How much power do they have and is this right?
8 - Jeannie Danna
One more question, even though I don't believe I will receive an answer.
Is the skull & Bones Society a discriminatory group? I believe it is!
9 - Dan(Miller)
Jeannie, I agree that she should have remained a member; her resignation takes her down a notch in my opinion. The club "discriminates" against men, but not "invidiously." If it was "right" for her to be a member while serving as a Federal appeals court judge (and, again, I think it was), it would have been equally "right" for her to remain a member and to defend her membership during the confirmation hearing. Her resignation may have been expedient, but suggests a rather unfortunate wishy-washy mind set.
Skull and Bones was (and I assume still is) an exclusive, "secret society" at Yale University; it appears to keep its secrets better than does the CIA.
As I understand the situation based on news reports, many Skull and Bones members went on to become quite powerful and prominent. I have no idea whether women are invited to join. And that's all that I know, never having been invited to become a member; had I been a member, of course, I would presumably be honor bound by an oath of secrecy and couldn't tell you anything more about it.
Dan(Miller)
10 - Clavos
Jeannie,
S & B is a college society. At the time they are invited to join, they are students, with no power whatsoever, nor any guarantee they ever will have any, and many S&B members never do.
Likewise, just being a Yale (or any other prestigious school) alumnus results in a lifetime of contacts with people who tend to become captains of industry, politicians, etc.
Would you propose regulating friendships forged in college?
11 - irene wagner
I see I missed your point, Dan (Miller). I picked up the "what's good for the goose is good for the gander" idea and ran with it, without, I'm ashamed to admit, reading the whole article. I'm sorry.
Still, the troubling thing about the membership of statesmen and judges in exclusive groups such as Skull & Bones and Belizean Grove is that it chips away confidence in the assurance that our government is "of the people, by the people, for the people."
"The bailout" is evidence that so many deals and decisions are being made behind closed doors which keep from public view interactions between people we elected to represent us (or their appointees) and influential people we didn't. Those conversations apparently signify more than those that are part of the Congressional record.
Maybe as you indicate, Clavos, there's no getting away from it. People who, either by virtue of superior intellect and ability or family connections, are privileged, will be drawn together, and of course one wouldn't want those associations regulated. The best one can hope for is that the people involved would hold to a personal code of honor.
12 - Jeannie Danna
Dan,
I see that we can agree :) She shouldn't have given her membership up to satisfy "Who, I don't know."
I ask about S&B because I have heard soo many rumors about them and their power. Like this little gem, " G H B stole Geronimo's skull for the group!" I really hope this is not true...
Now the big rumor is that Obama is a member, but like you said. He couldn't tell us if he was.
13 - roger nowosielski
Irene,
"People who, either by virtue of superior intellect and ability or family connections, are privileged, will be drawn together."
I'm trying to think of the Enlightenment era and the open-house kind of atmosphere at Voltaire's place of residence and French salons. It'd seem the French, whether by culture or nature, were more egalitarian when it came to accepting others into the inner circle, or perhaps it was the times.
Le Rouge et le Noir comes to mind. The aristocracy of the Bourbon era was facing severe crisis due to impoverishment and alliances with the bourgeois class, however deplorable, were necessary. Hence they lowered their "standards."
But the Americans never had aristocracy in the sense proper. Hence their insistence on distinction as regards birth, education and upbringing are artificial but comparison, because it's a construct. One's always more adamant about privileges one doesn't naturally have than those who are "born into them."
14 - Jeannie Danna
Clavos,
Thank you for addressing me personally!, I didn't think you would, In my #7 there is proof from 60 Minutes that shows the influence of the S&B society.
That is a frightening thought and would really show why our Constitution seems soo powerless in this country. It doesn't work right..and maybe S&B is the reason why?
I don't want to control everyone even though I give that impression:)
15 - Zedd
That Democrats sometimes do silly things should not be an excuse for Republicans to do those same silly things
Is this happening? Did I read this or am I still in the dream where Nelson Mandela is about to sing at a rock concert and Obama asks me to come to the from to sit with him and chat. BTW the dream ends with my mom and I singing after Mandela passes out and duet him back to health from our front row seats. This is all so weird, and laughable.
silliness begets silliness
Much like the last part of this paragraph.
And, of course, by not acting silly, the Republicans can help the Democrats look silly by comparison.
Whuuu??? (
Ahahahahahaha hhhhhhaaaaaaaaaaaa ha ha.
How? Who? Wow! How?
Ahhkakaakakaka (Popeye laugh) Cant stands n'more. ahkakakaka......
16 - irene wagner
Roger Nowosielski, I will say (tentatively!) that I see your point. You are making a distinction between genuine I'm-a-direct-descendant-of-Charlemagne aristocracy---which, at it's best (maybe) carried with it a sense of "noblesse oblige"---and the snobbishness and self-promotion of "nouveau riche." Oligarchy by the former might do less damage than an oligarchy by the latter, in theory.
17 - Clavos
@# 13:
Good analysis, Roger.
Americans, especially those whose origins were in Europe, are by and large, descendants of peasants; the nobility and ruling classes of the European countries which populated the USA during the 19th and early 20th centuries, for the most part did not emigrate -- they had no reason to. Those who did come were, on the whole, looking for a better life, or even as in the case of most of the Irish, escaping poverty and even starvation caused by the Great Potato Famine of the 19th century.
Interestingly, one of the national groups that decidedly does not fit this profile is the first wave of Cubans (those who came in the early sixties), almost all of whom were from the ruling and wealthy class of the island, and who have succeeded in this country beyond the levels of most European immigrant first wave arrivals (not their descendants). Their children are doing well, too; even those who came over by themselves in the Pedro Pan program of the early sixties.
Florida's Mel Martinez (Senator, Cabinet member, gubernatorial candidate) is one such.
18 - Dan(Miller)
Jeannie,
I seem to recall that President Obama was graduated from an insignificant formerly all boys school in Massachusetts, the name of which does not immediately come to mind. Skull and Bones is a secret society at very highly regarded Yale University, in New Haven, Connecticut. I seriously doubt that it accepts, or even recognizes, candidates from lesser institutions.
Dan(Miller)
19 - Clavos
You are making a distinction between genuine I'm-a-direct-descendant-of-Charlemagne aristocracy---which, at it's best (maybe) carried with it a sense of "noblesse oblige"---and the snobbishness and self-promotion of "nouveau riche."
Actually, the nouveau riche are NOT of the aristocracy. The term itself was originated by the aristocracy centuries ago and used to describe the merchant class, who were not aristocrats. It was pejorative, and of course means "newly rich," as opposed to those whose wealth has been in the family for generations, as is the case with most nobility.
20 - irene wagner
Yes, Clavos, and that was the distinction Roger was trying to make. American "aristocracy" likes to think it is aristocracy, but it's really just nouveau riche.
21 - Clavos
I seriously doubt that it accepts, or even recognizes, candidates from lesser institutions.
Don't be coy, Dan(Miller). As a Yalie yourself, you KNOW it doesn't.
22 - irene wagner
Well (#20), the distinction I think Roger was trying to make...(lol)...
23 - Clavos
Right, Irene. That's why I began my comment to him with "Good analysis, Roger."
24 - roger nowosielski
Apropos #16 and #17, another thing comes to mind, an episode from Les Miserables.
When Jean Jean Valjean, for whatever reason, offers Thénardier a passage to America and start-up money, even the scoundrel of Thénardier's ilk, always scrounging and poor, refuses. That was 1830s.
So the idea of starting a new life in the New World wasn't a very appealing one, except perhaps for the select few or those with very special circumstances.
It's fiction of course, still food for thought.
25 - Jeannie Danna
here is the Geronimo reference in wikipedia
Obama's controller? Of course can you trust wikipedia or a blog? :)
Oh, It was Preston not Herbert according to Wikipedia.